babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Exterminating wildlife how human. So let me get this straight wildlife is either meat or pests. Did I miss anything?

I hope no one in my neighbourhood decides they should shoot at cans in their backyard or anywhere else for that matter.

Sometimes they are hazards.

In the case of beaver that means a flooded road. In the case of moose they can turn around and charge your vehicle. And then there are wild boar, in places where they have become feral. All the vegetarianism in the world won't change the fact that we compete with animals for space.

As for deer and moose, the province deals with that problem by issuing more or fewer hunting licenses as required. I know Natural Resources sure doesn't have the time do deal with that reality.

(edit)

and k lives in the lower mainland. When I lived there I remember reading about those deep south toads that have gone wild in the Delta Marsh. The news story I read mentioned one which had someone's poor little kitty kat by the leg and was trying to drag it into the swamp.

Oh yeah, and they have raccoons. The day after our son was born my partner went into the kitchen alcove to find that one had come in the cat door after food.

Yeah, these arguments seem to me post hoc, with the real reason to defend ARs being that for those who use them. they are cool and they are fun. There's nothing wrong with liking something because it's cool, or having a preference (well, except maybe that ARs are kind of creepy) but the larger argument here - that allowing civilian access to them gets them too often into the wrong hands - takes precedence, imo, and the arguments that "it's people who are bad, not guns" is, sorry guys, really dumb.

It's like saying civilians should also have access to grenades (grenades are cool, right?), plastic explosives (how handy would this be, right?) or depleted uranium, because "it's not the device itself that's wrong, it's who is using it." Uh, yeah. We know.

Jas, there is a big difference between guns and explosives. There is far less likelihood of me causing unintended collateral damage on a Friday afternoon of target shooting in a gravel pit, as compared to throwing hand grenades hither and yon. Likewise if my house full of guns burns down, way less risk to firefighters than my house full of explosives. And if I remember correctly, plastic explosives burn rather than explode unless triggered by a detonator mechanism of some sort so even there my house fire full of semtex would probably be safer than my burning house of guns.

If I was a recreational explosives enthusiast I suppose the responsible thing would be to store them safely, and use them only where I am not breaking any laws or doing any harm. Oh wait, kind of like with guns.

Depleted uranium also poses several HAZMAT issues for usage and storage, but I guess it's not much different than all the lead that ends up downrange at gun ranges with a long enough history.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree with liking cool and fun things.

Yeah, these arguments seem to me post hoc, with the real reason to defend ARs being that for those who use them. they are cool and they are fun.

I'm not talking about automatic weapons, but my understanding is the opposite, actually. I have never considered guns cool. And while yeah, I have shot a few cans, neither that nor hunting is something I have ever done for fun.

But really, I just jumped in again to clarify something. It seemed pretty clear to me from the start this thread is more about what bait works best for fishing than it is about firearms.

Jesus, Unionist. No one is talking about shooting raccoons in Vancouver. Did I mention we had a day-old baby in the house? Last time I had a skunk burrow I got it to fuck off with water, mothballs and bright lights. For that matter, last time I heard the count there were about 200 wild deer living in WInnipeg city limits; I have no plans to mow them down either.

Though funny you should mention invasion. Shortly before I moved away from WInnipeg there was a breakin at the Bay at the corner of Portage and Colony. They assumed it was a robber until they saw the hair on the glass on the store window. Apparently a deer was right downtown and got spooked by the lights. Someone did see it running north down Colony.

Well Winston, in Nova Scotia, you need to go get a special permit to shoot raccoons. Alberta? No problem. Kill 'em anywhere, any time of year. Mind you, last time I checked, they were nocturnal types - which is why I want to know exactly which neighbourhoods to avoid.

But what about home invasions? Why should only the invaders be packing heat? A little bedside persuader can protect the whole family at a crucial time - no??

Since you put it that way, I can see where it sure could come in handy, but I also should point out that safe and secure storage requirements, either by law or common sense, would generally preclude the use of firearms in a home invasion scenario,

If I had a firearm handy, and I needed to save a life of a family member, I'd weigh my choices slowly: 1. Self-defence & protecting my family. 2. Get a ticket for violating a municipal bylaw.

I dunno. Tough choice. I'll get back to you.

Actually, speaking of bait, that's basically the same question every one of my friends got asked when they opted for community rather than military service - though it was invariably a bit more misogynist - what would they do if their partner was being assaulted and they had a gun?

I don't know Unionist; I actually never asked (or thought it important) because it was such an obvious question - even moreso because I know of four guys who were asked it in exactly the same way. My best friend did community service; two moved to Berlin, and I know one in France who hid out in the woods.

I was just watching some videos on youtube and apparently US states that have less restrictive gun control have the lowest rates of crimes and states that have the strictest gun control have the most crime

Aside from the rod and gun club experience I posted above, I've had various experiences with guns. One of my good friends in the 1960s killed his brother with a .22 rifle while in their backyard doing target shooting - both were young teenagers. Once, I found a semiauto handgun in one of the kitchen drawers in our house (I was about 12 at the time). In the 1980s, a good friend I was visiting got sick and I had to call an ambulance for him. He asked me to stay behind and get his personal effects in a bag and bring them to the hospital. Going through his stuff I found an old .38 revolver.

I'm in favour of subsistence hunting only, and not critter extermination or playing quick draw McGraw in the backyard. Mostly though, I support private gun ownership because I don't feel it is such a good thing for corporate governance to completely disarm and pacify the general population. They already have pacify down pat.

You should draft up a letter to Aborigional Canadians on behalf of the Harper government telling them they need to support turning their firearms in to government run shooting ranges-turn-store houses where they can ask us settlers permission to take their own guns out and hunt with them.

Slumberjack wrote:

I'm in favour of subsistence hunting only, and not critter extermination or playing quick draw McGraw in the backyard. Mostly though, I support private gun ownership because I don't feel it is such a good thing for corporate governance to completely disarm and pacify the general population. They already have pacify down pat.

Subsistence hunting with grenade launchers with less than 5 bombs because more than 5 means it's exponentally more dangerous.

I was just watching some videos on youtube and apparently US states that have less restrictive gun control have the lowest rates of crimes and states that have the strictest gun control have the most crime

By far, the toughest gun laws in the country are in Washington, D.C. They also consistently have one of the highest murder rates in the country. The issue is that gun laws vary dramatically state to state, so if you live in Washington, it's pretty easy to just drive over the border into Virginia, buy a gun under their lax gun laws, and drive right back to DC.

You should draft up a letter to Aborigional Canadians on behalf of the Harper government telling them they need to support turning their firearms in to government run shooting ranges-turn-store houses where they can ask us settlers permission to take their own guns out and hunt with them.

Ah - the cowboys defending the First Nations!!! Turning the History of the West on its head!!! Thank you.

Meanwhile, this conversation long precedes your current incarnation:

Unionist, on January 23, 2009 wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Just for the record, I think that Unionist really is serious about banning firearms for 'personal use' altogether. I would personally not include hunting rifles in that, but that's me. I would definitely include taking a handgun to dinner with my wife.

Actually, Catchfire, I certainly do not oppose use of firearms for hunting or competitive purposes.

I believe, however, that while there are legitimate uses for firearms, a strong case can be made for ending individual ownership of firearms (with some clear exceptions, such as issues relating to Aboriginal hereditary rights and sovereignty). Firearms would be owned and stored by public agencies (to be determined) and rented out for approved use (hunting, sport shooting, competition) as required. Ownership, purchase, sale, import, or export of firearms by individuals would be strictly banned. The costly firearms registry would, of course, become redundant.

There is no more valid social reason to allow individuals to "own" a handgun than there is to own a highway, or a tank. Use is a separate matter. I know, it's the beginning of totalitarian bolshevik slavery - but so were income tax and medicare.

In Vermont, pretty much anyone can carry a conceal handgun...one doesn't even need a permit (unlike most states that allow the concealed carrying of handguns). Vermont also has the lowest murder rate in the country, with the exception of New Hampshire. I suspect that's due to the culture in Vermont, not to the fact that people are free to carry handguns.

I grew up in an area of northern Minnesota where pretty much everyone has guns (hell, I had a handgun, a .357 magnum revolver, when I was still in high school). Seeing a glass gun case in someone's living room wouldn't have been remarkable (Ms. Sven grew up in a similar town -- and I was just looking at a photo of her as a little girl (in the early 1960s) and her dad's glass gun case was clearly visible in the photo of the living room). But, in neither town was there any significant violence. Again, it's a cultural issue -- with today there being a widespread lack of respect for others in many urban areas (the murder rate in New Orleans, for example, is about 52 for every 100,000 people -- in contrast to the murder rate for the entire state of North Dakota, a very rural area, of only 2 per 100,000 people).

I think culture is the root problem. Then, when you mix that culture with semi-automatic rifles, you often get bad results. Banning semi-automatic rifles probably isn't a bad idea (I'm ambivalent about that) but that is really just a superficial "solution" to the underlying problem of a basic lack of civility and respect for other people.

So a few years back I helped a friend of mine haul some firewood to his older relative's place out in the country, rural central Alberta if I remember right. We unload the firewood and stack it for them, friend wants to visit with his relatives for a bit. We go inside, sitting in their living room, guns come up as a topic. Old feller asks me if I want to see some of his guns. Well, SURE! says I. Old farmhouses sometimes have some real nice old guns.

Old feller reaches down under a couch cushion and comes up with a small semiautomatic handgun, think it was one of those old "pocket pistols" popular back in the 30's and 40's era. Fucking thing was loaded, too. He goes into the coffee table and comes out with another loaded handgun, this one was a little chrome .25.

Fucking guy had loaded guns EVERYWHERE in his house. Him and his wife were probably never more than 5 feet from a loaded gun anywhere in their house, but it was a small house. Odd way to live your life but to each their own I suppose. Some American websites I lurk have people who have gone so far as to keep loaded handguns in ziplock bags in their showers in case the armed home invasion happens when they are in the shower and they can't get to any of their other loaded guns of all sorts stashed here and there about the house.

I suppose in all fairness nobody would think to look for valuables in the couch cushions but this setup seems very unsecure to me on so many levels, but I have been socially conditioned my whole life on gun safety and secure storage and safety in general.

Even if I didn't have guns I'd still probably buy a safe and lock stuff away in it, but that's just me.

I was 12 when I first handled a handgun. As I wrote above, the damned thing was in a kitchen drawer. My older brother was finding handguns all over the place in the previous house we lived in. That was the 1950s and 1960s.

We had two 22s, a shotgun and a 30-30 in the house for as long as I remember. They were in an unlocked closet, and I knew better than to play with guns. It was no big deal, and I never thought about them except when we went hunting .

Now that you mention it I did have a handgun when I was a kid - a german flare pistol. Completely useless, but it was a working gun. It got destroyed in a fire.

(edit)

there was a thing on CBC about the death of the penny, and one of the things they mentioned turning up in sorting machines was 22 bullets. I'm not surprised. I run into a loose one eveyr now and then.